Gemini Prompt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-interactive mode and JSON output, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication/credentials needed by the CLI, side effects (does it read include_dirs and touch the filesystem?), rate limits, cost, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and output are stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a five-parameter CLI wrapper.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the tool is a relatively complex CLI wrapper with 5 undocumented parameters and no annotations. Key context an agent needs — credential requirements, sandbox/side-effect profile, and parameter behavior — is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters (model, prompt, timeout_s, extra_args, include_dirs), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Obscure parameters like extra_args and include_dirs are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states an action and resource ('run local gemini CLI non-interactively') and an output trait ('return structured JSON'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, in a cluster with gemini_prompt_plus, gemini_prompt_with_memory, and gemini_search, it does not establish what makes this the base prompting entry point versus its siblings, leaving the agent to guess from names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or the conditions under which this should be chosen over gemini_prompt_plus or gemini_prompt_with_memory. 'Non-interactively' hints at a batch use case but is not framed as guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.